Corp., 67 F.3d 296 (table), 1995 WL 541623, at *3-4 (4th Cir. Sept 13, 1995) (finding that documents submitted to, but not considered by, the court did “not play any role in the adjudicative process” and “are [therefore] not subject to” the common law or First Amendment right of access).

Factors to weigh “include whether the records are sought for improper purposes ... ; whether release would enhance the public’s understanding of an important historical event; and whether the public has already had access to the information contained in the records.” In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).

The Local Civil Rules require that a party claiming confidentiality support the motion to seal with evidence, “including affidavits or declarations”.

Attorneys’ arguments in briefs are not evidence, but their “representation to the Court that documents contain confidential business information can be considered as some evidence” that is “weighed against competing interests.” Cochran v. Volvo Group N.A., LLC, 931 F. Supp.

Otherwise, it is determined that the business interests outlined in the briefs and declarations in support of sealing outweigh the public’s right of access to the information.

Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) hereby moves for relief from judgment and the Court’s ongoing royalty order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6).

The prejudice inherent in vacating the judgment itself is not a basis for denying relief under Rule 60(b), see, e.g., Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984), and, in any event, there is nothing unfair about holding Altria to its agreement granting JUUL the right to sublicense the patents-in-suit to other parties like Reynolds.

Reynolds has a meritorious defense to the judgment and ongoing-royalty order because the sublicense creates a material change in circumstances: a licensed party cannot infringe a patent.

Under Delaware law, which governs both the Altria-JUUL license and the Reynolds-JUUL sublicense, courts must enforce clear and unambiguous contract terms according to their ordinary meaning.

Because this motion is filed while the underlying judgment is on appeal, Reynolds respectfully requests that the Court issue an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(a) stating that it would (1) vacate the judgment as it relates to infringement and damages (including supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest), and (2) vacate the order for prospective royalties.

The Court, having considered the Parties’ Joint Motion [Doc. #548] for Entry of Stipulation Regarding Drafts of Jury Instructions and Verdict Form Transmitted to and from the Court, is of the opinion that the motion should be GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Court enters the following ORDER: WHEREAS in addition to the Joint Submission of Pretrial Documents filed at Doc. #361 on August 4, 2022, Altria and Reynolds transmitted drafts of the preliminary and final jury instructions and verdict form to the Court in this matter, and the Court transmitted a draft of the final jury instructions to the parties; WHEREAS the Parties separately contacted the Court via email to request amendments to certain of the submitted drafts; WHEREAS these drafts and emails were not filed on the public docket in this matter; and WHEREAS both Parties wish the drafts of the jury instructions and verdict form transmitted to and from the Court, and also the emails to and from the Court regarding amendments to certain drafts, to be part of the record in this case; NOW, THEREFORE, the Court approves the Parties’ joint stipulation that drafts of the jury instructions and verdict form attached to the joint motion, and also the attached emails regarding amendments to certain drafts, accurately reflect what was exchanged between the Parties and the Court in this matter and shall be made part of the record, as follows: Appendix A: Proposed Revised Joint Preliminary Instructions (sent by the Parties to the Court Aug. 26, 2022) Appendix B: Proposed Revised Joint Preliminary Instructions (sent by the Parties to the Court Aug. 26, 2022, 3:05 PM) Appendix C: Proposed Revised Joint Preliminary Instructions (sent by the Parties to the Court Aug 28, 2022, 10:23 AM) Appendix D: Correspondence between Parties and Court re corrections to Appendix C (Aug. 28, 2022, 1:53 PM & 2:37 PM) Appendix E: Joint Proposed Supplemental Final Instructions and Verdict Form (sent by the Parties to the Court Sept. 6, 2022, 12:38

Appendix F: Draft Final Jury instructions (sent by the Court to the Parties September 6, 2022, 6:10 PM) Appendix G: Proposed Final Verdict Form (sent by the Parties to the Court Sept. 6, 2022, 6:15 PM) Appendix H: Correspondence between Counsel for Reynolds and Court re correction to Appendix F (Sept. 6, 2022, 7:20 PM)

This the 20th day of January, 2023.

As RJR argues, its invalidity expert Karl Leinsing testified that the image of the JUUL pod in the WIRED Article “shows a completely separate compartment from the liquid compartment”, a “sealed box” with its only access being a wick.

However, Steven Schroeder, Altria’s 30(b)(6) witness, testified that he did not know with which company Fontem contracted that triggered the most favored licensee clause, but “[a]n MFL expert was involved in the process” and concluded “[t]hat -- that particular entity was not getting a better rate ... .” (Stipulation Regarding Dep. Test.

Even if the door were opened, RJR contends that “Altria’s intentional reference to infringement findings in other cases was not commensurate with any need to rebut Figlar’s testimony, and was instead designed only to poison the jury against Reynolds.” (Id. at 5-6 (citing United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1037- 38 (9th Cir. 2007); Valadez v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 758 F.3d 975, 981-82 (8th Cir.

On the other hand, Altria maintains that Dr. Figlar’s “counter-designated deposition and trial testimonies violated the spirit of the parties’ stipulation and opened the door to Altria’s question by implying the Reynolds does not infringe the [Asserted] Patents because it has a policy of avoiding infringement.” (Pl.’s Opp’n to 59(a) at 6-9.)

This is especially “clear,” so says Altria, when RJR’s motion is assessed in view of Leinsing’s testimony and RJR’s counsel’s argument at trial that “his intended cross- examination of McAlexander was premised on the assumption that the 2015 JUUL Device ‘was representative of what’s in the articles’ asserted as prior art.” (Id. at 13 (citing Tr. 540:22-541:9, 554:19-556:6 (Leinsing); Tr. 845:13-16 (counsel)).)

Before the Court is the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel to withdraw Isha Agarwal as counsel of record for Altria Client Services LLC in the above-captioned matter.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel [Doc. #533] to withdraw Isha Agarwal as Counsel is GRANTED.

This the 8th day of December, 2022.

The Court, having considered the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulation for Stay of Execution on Judgment in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond, is of the opinion that the motion should be GRANTED.

Reynolds shall not be required to provide a supersedeas bond or other security as a condition of staying execution on the Judgment or proceedings to enforce it pending the Court’s resolution of all post-Judgment motions filed and any appeal taken by either party.

Altria shall not make any attempt or effort to execute on or enforce the Judgment—or payment of any ongoing royalties, costs, or interest that has accrued or continues to accrue thereon—before 14 days after the final termination of all appeals in this case, including proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the expiration of time to file a petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Altria is entering into this Stipulation in the interest of avoiding unnecessary burden and expense.

Nothing in this stipulation stays the accounting of damages for the period of June 30, 2022 through the date of the Judgment or shall be used against Altria in connection with its request for an ongoing royalty to compensate Altria for any ongoing or future infringement.

Before the Court is the Motion Requesting Leave to Withdraw Amelia E. Murray as Counsel for R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion Requesting Leave to Withdraw Amelia E. Murray as Counsel [Doc. #479] is GRANTED.

This the 26th day of October, 2022.

Corp., 67 F.3d 296 (table), 1995 WL 541623, at *3-4 (4th Cir. Sept 13, 1995) (finding that documents submitted to, but not considered by, the court did “not play any role in the adjudicative process” and “are [therefore] not subject to” the common law or First Amendment right of access).

Factors to weigh “include whether the records are sought for improper purposes ... ; whether release would enhance the public’s understanding of an important historical event; and whether the public has already had access to the information contained in the records.” In re Knight Pub. Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).

Attorneys’ arguments in briefs are not evidence, but their “representation to the Court that documents contain confidential business information can be considered as some evidence” that is “weighed against competing interests.” Cochran v. Volvo Group N.A., LLC, 931 F. Supp.

Plaintiff quotes from that declaration here as if the reasons to shield “competitive marketing and technical intelligence, business updates[,] and future plans” in those ten trial exhibits support sealing merely the product summary chart at issue here.

And, as with the earlier motions to seal, the parties have thoughtfully and narrowly tailored their requested redactions to allow the public the greatest possible access to the substance of the documents before the Court.

Do you find that Altria has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Reynolds has infringed any of the following claims of the Asserted Patents?

Do you find that Reynolds has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following claims of the Asserted Patents is invalid?

What sum of money did Altria prove by a preponderance of the evidence would be adequate compensation for Reynolds’s past infringement of the Asserted Patents?

Reynolds will supplement its financial production for the VUSE Alto from July 1, 2022 through August 31, 2022, by September 30, 2022.

Altria shall recover from Reynolds pre-judgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, from May 28, 2019 through the date of the judgment.

WHEREAS Altria Client Services LLC (“Altria”) and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Reynolds”) (collectively, “the Parties”) have presented testimony at the trial of this matter in the form of video deposition testimony; WHEREAS this video deposition testimony was not transcribed into the transcript of trial proceedings for this matter: and WHEREAS both Parties wish the transcripts of the video deposition testimony played in court to be part of the record in this case; THEREFORE the Parties jointly stipulate that the transcripts of the video deposition testimony played during the trial of this matter shall be made part of the record in this matter.

The testimony is attached to Docket No. 469 as follows: Appendix A: Kara Calderon (11/12/20) Appendix B: Kara Calderon (7/12/21) Appendix C: Michael Eng (4/21/22) Appendix D: James Figlar (7/22/21) Appendix E: James Figlar (6/3/22) Appendix F: Steven Schroeder (6/24/21)

This the 3rd day of October, 2022.

Senior United States District Judge Stipulated and agreed this 29 day of September, 2022.

Before the Court is the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel to withdraw Stephanie Adamakos as counsel of record for Altria Client Services LLC in the above- captioned matter.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel to withdraw Stephanie Adamakos as Counsel is GRANTED.

This the 3rd day of October, 2022.

Joe McAlexander Project Hudson Prototype Photo Hudson Beta Prototype Juul Photo image of Juul Pod RJR Amendment to PMTA for Vuse Alto Vuse Alto 517 Patent 269 Patent 541 Patent Vuse Alto Pod Photo Kara Calderon (video Deposition) Vuse website printout - Alto General Market Assessment Go-to-Marketing Plan August 2018 Vuse Portfolio Evaluation Total US Shipments to Retail Summary STR Cover - Vapor Spreadsheet STR Cover - Vapor Spreadsheet Vapor Demand Review 8/2020 Dr. James Figlar (video Deposition) R.J. Reynolds supp response to Altria Interogatories James Malackowski 6 Reasons why Alto is the Favorite (3/2021) Alto Complete Kit photo Spreadsheet - Total Innovations Income Statement Vuse Modern Oral Snus Query by Brand 2020 Alto breakdown photos Page 1

Sales in the US in 2020 May 2022 Default Profit & Loss January 2022 Default Profit & Loss February 2022 Default Profit & Loss April 2022 Default Profit & Loss March 2022 Default Profit & Loss June 2022 Default Profit and Loss Vuse Modern Query EPM Detail by Brand 2021 Press Release re: Fontem and Njoy 11/2015 Press Release re: Fontem and Vapor Corp. 12/15 Karl Leinsing Juul Device Photo from Verge Juul Article Inova Device Photo V2 Pro Series 7 Device Photo iPh-8 Device Photo iJoy Device Photo Inova Pod Photo V2 Pro Series 7 YouTube video V2 Pro Series 7 device V2 Pro Series 7 YouTube video V2 Pro Series 7 YouTube video Shortened YouTube V2 Pro Series 7 video Shortened YouTube V2 Pro Series 7 video Shortened YouTube V2 Pro Series 7 video Inova YouTube Video Inova Device Shortened YouTube Inova video Shortened YouTube Inova video Shortened YouTube Inova video Buisness Wire Juul Article Wired Juul Article Verge Juul Article 2 Evidence Bags containing Juul Pods Drawn Timeline Inova 2.0 Product Photos Photo of Inova 2.0 Physical Sample Photo from Wired Juul Article Juul Sample Photos

Video Deposition of Michael Eng Juul Sample Photo Juul Sample Photo Juul Sample Photo Wired article about Juul Dr. James Figlar Vuse Solo Physical Sample (passed out to jury) Vuse Alto Physical Sample Total innovation income Statement for Fall 2012-2019 Vuse Modern Oral Snus Query by Brand 2020 Image of Juul package Image of Juul pod Total innovation income Statement for Fall 2012-2019 Vuse Modern Oral Snus Query by Brand 2020 ShenZhen Smoore Technology License Agreement Eric Hunt Alto Complete Kit screensheet Dr. John M. Collins Vuse Alto CAD File Image Vuse Alto Physical Sample 517 Patent 269 Patent 541 Patent Alto Image Smoore 2D Engineering Drawings of Vuse Alto Vuse Alto Pod Photo Page 1

Alarcon Expert Report Wired Article Inova 2.0 Product Photos 3 US Patent Publ 2015/0335073 (Li) Verge 1/13/2020 Article Wired Article Inova 2.0 Product Photos 3 US Patent Publ 2015/0335073 (Li) Steven Schroeder (video deposition) Intellectual Property License Agreement NuMark/Fontem Agreement Dr. Nisha Mody Fontem/Reynolds Agreement Fontem/NuMark Agreement RAI Financial Update - October LC 2018 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/20222 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 8/30/2022 8/30/2022 9/2/2022 Page 2 of 6

Buisness Case for Solo Wolve Ex. 8; Total Innovations Income Stmt.

McAlexander Experience Reynold's Expert's Definition of a Qualified Expert

McAlexander meets Reynold's definition of an expert EDVA Transcript - McAlexander is qualified to render McAlexander's Secondary Consideration 517 Patent Page 1